Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Wednesday, 14 August 1974
Page: 934


Senator GEORGES (Queensland) - I must confess to some uneasiness in regard to the example that was given by the AttorneyGeneral. Let me give another example in the banking system. If a person goes to the Commonwealth Bank, for example, and applies for a housing loan the bank will put a requisite on that application that the applicant should have had at least $1,000 or perhaps $1,500 in the bank during the previous 12 months or the loan will not be granted. The position taken by the bank is clear. It says that it can afford to lend only to those who save with the bank. The bank argues that it does not believe it to be reasonable that a person who may save with a housing society at an interest rate of 9% per cent and who has practically no savings deposits in the bank should ask for and expect to get a loan of some $14,000. My understanding from what the Attorney-General has said is that this action by the bank would be a restraint under the legislation.


Senator Murphy - No.


Senator GEORGES -Let me go a little further and give the example of a person who goes to a hire purchase firm and applies for a personal loan. A condition of that personal loan is that the applicant shall take out an insurance policy with a subsidiary at a rate of interest higher than that which he would be required to pay elsewhere for the same type of loan. It seems to me that that would be restraint under this legislation.


Senator Murphy - Yes.


Senator GEORGES -Then what is the essential difference? Why would the limitation be imposed on the application to the bank and not on the one to the hire purchase company?







Suggest corrections